Abstract

Background Most scientific journals practise anonymous peer review.
There is no evidence, however, that this is any better than an open
system.

Aims To evaluate the feasibility of an open peer review system.

Method Reviewers for the British Journal of Psychiatry were
asked whether they would agree to have their name revealed to the authors
whose papers they review; 408 manuscripts assigned to reviewers who agreed
were randomised to signed or unsigned groups. We measured review quality,
tone, recommendation for publication and time taken to complete each
review.

Results A total of 245 reviewers (76%) agreed to sign. Signed
reviews were of higher quality, were more courteous and took longer to
complete than unsigned reviews. Reviewers who signed were more likely to
recommend publication.

Conclusions This study supports the feasibility of an open peer
review system and identifies such a system's potential drawbacks.